Who was the last US president who stood for the people's interests?

Most people in my world believe that JFK was the last real president we had, and that he also had the American people's best interest at heart. There
are lots of theories out there that speculate on the specific reasons why they killed him but the bottom line has to be that he simply would not
"play ball" with some very powerful people. And I am obviously not talking about the mob.

I am going to say Herbert Hoover and before everyone tries to say "he caused the great depression!" I challenge you to research how and why the
Great Depression actually occurred. If you believe it had anything to do with a man who held office for just 6 months you are a complete moron. Many
criticize him for his lack of action towards the Great Depression especially when they compare him to Roosevelt. But there is something that Hoover
had and Roosevelt did not; moral principles.

Hoover was a Quaker and being a Quaker his philosophical and religious beliefs would not permit him to force anyone to do something involuntarily
without justifiable cause (i.e. breaking the law). He sat down business leaders and pleaded with them to help the economy. Roosevelt on the other hand
went far beyond his executive powers and bullied people into doing what he wanted done.

I think Kennedy would be the best recent candidate for that slot but, hardly a good man.
For a long time now it has been a game to please ones masters, and that is what killed the states.
Hopefully in the upcoming revolution the people will be cool headed and figure out who put us here and go after them rather than their neighbor.
But the PTB know anger will be unleashed on our neighbors as we are an angry bunch.
I just pray when the dust settles our new leaders will be good ones and pursue the string pullers across any border and bring them back to stand
before the court of real law.

Originally posted by balon0
Who was the last US president who stood for the people's interests?

There never actually was one. Seriously, the majority of our presidents were not actually elected by the population; they were selected in backroom
parties, and the wealthy elite voted; the majority of American society was totally excluded from the system. By the time suffrage became
near-universal, the system was already in place to heavily favor the "chosen" candidate.

If you really buy that the United States has been "by the people, for the people" at any point in its history, then you need to never speak
about history.

Was John F Kennedy the last TRUE American president? Every other president after him were some how tied to the Illuminati / secret societies /
NWO?

Given that the Kennedy were one of the most connected families in the nation, connections that helped get Johnny Boy into office, and connections that
largely defined our stance towards Cuba (andas a result, the USSR) this is kind of an odd assertion

Would there ever be another American president who would try to

Reduce taxes
Increase Jobs

Probably! Because most of our presidents are dumbasses when it comes to how an economy works (I guess they DO represent the public in some ways, huh?)
You can't cut taxes AND increase jobs.It doesn't work that way. It is mathematically impossible.

I know the GOP tells you otherwise. This is because the GOP know that when it comes to money and economics, the average American is about on
intellectual par with a pack of gum. So long as YOU buy their bullcrap, THEY get massive, massive tax cuts; and since their job security relies on who
they know rather than what they do, they don't need to worry about the "jobs" side of the equation - unless a Democrat is in office, when they
pretend to give a crap about Joe Schmoe the wrench-monkey.

Expose the Illuminati / Secret Societies

I thought you wanted a president who was using his time productively? Look, let's be real. Who needs an "illuminati" when you can call yourself a
Senator and do the exact same thing completely in the open?

Create a non-federal reserve currency

Well, that's actually congress' purview. And doing this would require lots of money coming into the treasury. Know where that comes from? Taxes.

Originally posted by Misoir
I am going to say Herbert Hoover and before everyone tries to say "he caused the great depression!" I challenge you to research how and why the Great
Depression actually occurred. If you believe it had anything to do with a man who held office for just 6 months you are a complete moron. Many
criticize him for his lack of action towards the Great Depression especially when they compare him to Roosevelt. But there is something that Hoover
had and Roosevelt did not; moral principles.

Hoover was a Quaker and being a Quaker his philosophical and religious beliefs would not permit him to force anyone to do something involuntarily
without justifiable cause (i.e. breaking the law). He sat down business leaders and pleaded with them to help the economy. Roosevelt on the other hand
went far beyond his executive powers and bullied people into doing what he wanted done.

So I will say Hoover.

Uhm. There's some cognitive dissonance in your post.

Yes, Hoover "sat down with business leaders" and pleaded with them to help the economy. They refused to do so, and what did Hoover do?

Nothing. He did nothing. All over the country, Americans are losing their jobs so that the businessmen can keep profits. People are losing their homes
so that banks can retain wealth. People are going hungry because the agribusiness owners don't want to sell below certain prices. And Hoover did
nothing.

That is not a moral principle, unless your morals state that the wealthy have more human worth than the non-wealthy. Poverty - especially
preventable poverty - is a blatant reduction of a person's freedoms. So in effect, hoover traded the freedom of the people he was
supposed to represent, out of fear for upsetting the people who he actually did represent - A group to which he also happened to be a
member.

Hoover sat on his hands and let the country burn rather than take decisive action to bring the country out of its spiral. THAT is why he is remembered
as the cause of the Great Depression; not so much that he himself caused it, but that he flat refused to address it.

So if you want to admire a man who would have happily watched your kids starve, if the other option was to raise taxes on the people who fired you and
foreclosed on your home, be my guest. But don't expect me to share the view that this makes him morally upstanding, much less that he "stood for the
people's interests."

Before you attack Herbert Hoover for being a man which did not care about the poor and downtrodden, research his great humanitarian work in Europe, he
saved thousands of Belgian people from dying of starvation during World War I with his food program, he got the food from the United States and
instead of reducing the food through force to transfer there he asked the American people to voluntarily lower their purchasing of produce,
which they happily did.

Hoover saved millions of poor and starving Ukrainians when the Soviets waged a genocide against them with their intentional destruction of the food
supply. Millions were starving and so Hoover went there to help and that he did.

During the one of the worst floods in American History, comparable to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, he went down to Mississippi with an all
volunteer force to help the displaced, sick, and hungry. That he did under the Coolidge administration when Coolidge (rightfully so) told them he
would not send federal assistance.

Herbert Hoover was a Quaker (Religious Society of Friends) and if you know anything about the religion then his lack of will to forcefully make people
do what he wanted them to was part of his religious upbringing and philosophy. All actions must be voluntary for them to be moral, we have no right to
force our will onto others, that is a key concept of Quaker philosophy. So he was not sitting by letting the people die because he just felt like
helping the rich. His record showed contrary to the nasty attacks you have launched towards him. He has done 100 times more for the poor than you or I
ever have yet you have the audacity to say he had no problem letting the poor suffer.

How many programs did you direct to give food to the starving? I would guess none.

During the first few months of his term he declared that we are about to end poverty in America. Under his administration he launched many new social
service programs to assist the homeless, hungry, and poor. He refused to accept his public income the entirety of his years of service deciding to
instead give it to charities.

In my opinion if you don't factor in his horrid treatment of Native Americans. Then Andrew Jackson wins hands down. He took on the Federal Reserve of
his time and won, he also did'nt take no crap from the political elite. Just a good ole boy from Tennesee, he gets my vote.

Originally posted by wolveseyes
it was abe lincoln and george washington lol george didnt even want to be the face of america

Abe Lincoln was an absolute tyrant, easily the single worst president to EVER be in the White House. Our history books are quite lovey dovey in his
regards, but quite frankly the man was a bastard.

Washington at the time was one of the richest men in America, he didn't want to be King because he was a smart man who knew Kings were slaves. At
the time of his death he had amounted a networth of $530,000, adjusted for inflation he was a billionaire.

I don't think any president stands for the people.. if I had to choose, I'd pick Jackson just because he was an as!%! in general, and didn't care
what anyone thought. He also dismanteled the American National Bank (Reserve) on top of that he was also the first President that was not born rich,
he was an orphan.

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.
-Jackson

He Is also the ONLY President to EVER pay off the national debt.. after killing the Reserve all debts were paid.
He tried to abolish the Electoral College calling it corrupt, and turning the Federal Election into a Direct Vote.

Granted he also killed many Indians, stole Florida from the Spanish when we were not at war with them, was a Federalist.. and admitted his only
regrets during his administration was not hanging Henry Clay or shooting his vice president Calhoun.

I think all of our presidents started off for the people. But "the people" want different things. Some of the people want socialized health care.
Some of the people want no (or at least very few) taxes. Some of the people want gun control, while others want to have an arsenal. But when making
the decision between who of "the people" get what they want, it simply comes down to who has the most money. And that would be the corporations. It
is like being bought. These people are giving me the money to run for president, so I need to give them what they want.

The only way I can see us getting around this is to get rid of the stupid party system completely and each candidate runs independently. This prevents
the voter heading in to the polling booth and voting for "republican" or "democrat" without knowing what each candidate stands for.

Then, each candidate is given a specified amount of campaign money (no using their own money, no donations, no raising money for their campaign). Only
using the money allotted for their campaign. This money should be government supplied. This eliminates the candidate "being owned" by a corporation,
and can focus more on what is good for the people.

Also, a candidate should not have any conflict of interest. They should not own stock in any huge corporation, such as the oil industry or
pharmaceudical industry or any other corporate giant. We have rules for insider trading. We have rules for conflicts of interest. You are not eligible
for a contest if you have a close relative that works for the company. Why do we not have these rules for a presidential candidate, where it is most
important? Bottom line...things are different now. We need a change of how we elect officials.

Maybe i read through this thread too quickly, but I'm shocked that i did not see Andrew Jackson's name come up.

He kicked the banks butt, they tried to kill him, and he kicked them harder

these were a few of his points in his agenda

* It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
* It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
* It served mainly to make the rich richer.
* It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
* It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.
* Banks are controlled by a few select families.
* Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations, forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them.

I am sure at some point in a politicians early career they are for "the peoples' interests". This, however, is not how you get elected. To become
president, one must have only the interest of the party and the status quo.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.